Table 2.
Perceived Coercion | N | Range | Mean | Median | SD | Percentages | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Perceived Coercion Scale: | Perceived Coercion Index: | 84 | 0 – 14 | 6.5 | 6.0 | 0.61 | |
Sum of 5 coercion scores = Perceived Coercion Index | Continuous score where: | ||||||
lower sum = less coercion | |||||||
higher sum = greater coercion. | |||||||
(Possible range = 0 – 25) | |||||||
Perceived Coercion Dichotomized: split by | |||||||
below the median = low coercion | 0 - 1 | Low: 47 (56%) | |||||
equal to or above median = high coercion. | High: 37 (44%) | ||||||
| |||||||
Decisional Capacity | Analysis | N | Range | Mean | Median | SD | Percentages |
| |||||||
MacArthur Competency Assessment Tool – Treatment (MacCAT-T) | Understanding (Original): | 84 | 2.8 – 6.0 | 5.31 | 5.5 | 0.71 | |
Measures: | Possible range: 0-6 | ||||||
1) Understanding | Two outliers truncated up to a minimum score of 3.6 and transformed by Reflect & Log. | 0 - .53 | 0.192 | 0.186 | 0.17 | ||
2) Appreciation | Appreciation (Original): | 2 – 4 | 3.93 | 4.0 | 0.34 | ||
3) Reasoning | Possible range: 0-4 | ||||||
4) Expressing a choice. | As only 4 participants did not get a perfect score of 4, created a categorical variable: | ||||||
low numbers = less cognitive ability | Appreciation: Yes = 1; No = 0 | Yes 80 (95.2%)
No 4 (4.8%) |
|||||
high numbers = greater cognitive ability. | Reasoning (Original): | 2 – 8 | 7.65 | 8.0 | 1.0 | ||
Possible range: 0-8 | |||||||
Majority of participants had a perfect score. | |||||||
Also created a dichotomous categorical variable of: | |||||||
Reasoning: Yes = 1; No = 0 | Yes 71 84.5%)
No 13 15.5%) |
||||||
Express a Choice (Original): | 0 – 2 | 1.83 | 2.0 | 0.53 | |||
Possible range: 0-2 | |||||||
Majority of participants had a perfect score. | |||||||
Also created a dichotomous categorical variable of: | |||||||
Express a choice: Yes = 1; No = 0 | Yes 76 (90.5%)
No 8 (9.5%) |